Talk:Cold Blood (Doctor Who)

29th May?

Is this a confirmed date, or a "as far as we know it's accurate" date? Eurovision's on that date, after all, and it kinda screws up the finale being foreshadowed to take place on 26 June 2010 (like The End of Time was 24-26 December "2009"). Sceptre ^(talk) 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SFX #196 states that DW misses a week on that date. magnius (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, re-read it and it seems to be speculation more than fact. magnius (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the date provided in the summary of the episode in DWM 421. So it is sourced. Hektor (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

DWM has been known to put speculative dates that "are accurate at the time of going to press". Apologies; I still haven't got my subscriber copy yet. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So this comes to the issue of the reliability of sources. Hektor (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I finally got my DWM and onto a computer. It's a "as far as we know it's accurate" date; i.e. it says "TBC", unlike the dates for Vampires in Venice, Amy's Choice, and The Hungry Earth. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it's happened now, hasn't it? 29th May indeed it was. 86.146.92.173 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Plot

This is SERIOUSLY long, people! 89.195.153.2 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Spin-off Torchwood

I have added the fact that Torchwood is spin-off of Doctor Who in regards to Chibnall's work on that series. This is to state clearly that the two series are related. Matthew See (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Someone has reverted the edit. Here's the thing either mention Torchwood is a Doctor Who spin-off or don't mention it at all. Just referring it as a science fiction series does not give any indication that it is related to Doctor Who.Matthew See (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception please?

We are lacking critical reception, I think this is needed. 81.104.44.84 (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Sixth Extinction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --Gen. Quon (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "Writer Chris Chibnall was contacted by executive producers Steven Moffat and Piers Wenger about writing a two-part Doctor Who episode about Silurians and a drill." Too many abouts for my taste

Fixed.Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Critical reception doesn't seem to be that mixed. I'd go more with moderately positive, as Fuller is the only one who had anything that negative to say.

I changed it to "positive to mixed". Actually, Fuller is the moore negative review; Wales was mixed, and Martin was so-so (he later said it was disappointing. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Just want to check, what makes "Doctor Who News Page" a reliable source?

It's been accepted it most GAs and the few FA Doctor Who episode pages and has been cited by other sources such as io9 and SFX. I only use it when necessary, though. It's boarderline. This is the only AI figure reported in a more reliable source for this series, and it lists the Doctor Who News Page as its source! Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Any pictures for the production section? Doesn't really matter, but I like pictures. ;)

I've looked, but there's nothing for Chibnall and the Plantasia picture doesn't show the plants which is the whole point...I suppose I could use a picture of Darvill, but that would just repeat the caption used in the infobox. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is a really well-written article. Just a couple minor issues, but nothing bad. Putting on hold for 7 days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! See comments above. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright! Looks good, I pass! Cheers!--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Text

I've just made a few adjustments to the text, including changing the word "contacted" to "contracted" in the first sentence of the Production section. Now that I've read this talk page and the page history, I see that "contacted ... about" had previously been changed to "contacted ... to", so it wasn't a typo as I thought. Still, the verb needed to be changed anyway (but there may be a better choice). I'll leave any additional changes for others to decide on.

Editors may wish to consider the following: in the second paragraph of Production, surely "overarching" is unnecessary with "story arc";

also in the second paragraph of that section, could the second sentence end where the comma is? The following explanation makes the sentence very long and is not really relevant to this article;

the sentence beginning "Moffat also thought ..." might better be constructed from a direct quotation, as it very much reflects Steven Moffat's own thinking;

could the reference(s) for the final three sentences be clarified? Are they all meant to be covered by the same citation at the end? Without a direct reference, the sentence beginning "Rory's death is also connected ..." is original research;

and back up in the lead section, the plot summary is highly condensed and not easy to follow - perhaps this could be simplified, as it only needs to be an outline of the summary below.

To all the editors who have built this article: please don't mind these suggestions - they are made only in the interests of quality, and I do enjoy copy editing. I believe we all want articles to be just as good as they can be. Alfrew (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No continuity section

May I suggest the addition of a continuity section to this episode? An example of a continuity error with this episode would be when Amy Pond is waving to herself at the end of the episode. The Doctor explains that this is Amy Pond 10 years in the future revisiting places out of nostalgia. This isn't possible considering the fact that a few years later she would be sent back in time with her husband she had the touch of a weeping angel. 66.87.68.234 (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please cite a source for that original research. DonQuixote (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Page image

(Not sure if discussing here or on File talk:Doctor Who Cold Blood.JPG is best)

The page image is really indistinct and dark outside of the crack, and the plot-relevant details (Rory being erased) takes up maybe a sixth of the picture. Even on my giant TV set you can barely see anything of Rory's body on the ground. Wouldn't a still from the same scene, like a closer shot of the cavern crack or Amy sitting by Rory's side (like "The Stolen Earth" demonstrates with Rose) be both clearer and more illustrative? TardisTybort (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)